US Politics



Here's one for Americans. RFK JR. Remove all the vaccine stuff, which for him, my reading tells me, predates coronavirus (he's been anti-vaccine, all, or many, for decades and whatever happened there or thereafter, I don't really care about) - Covid nonsense aside, the man is basically speaking common sense principle (FDR type stuff). He has no chance of ever winning office, but when a marginal figure is marginalized, with no real reason (forget the covid stuff, I know many people who were anti-vaccine pre-covid who changed their minds and others who were pro-vaccine and lost their minds) - anyway, when such things happen, it tends to be, not always, but generally, because they are speaking about things, whatever of their person, which certain people/institutions do not want on the agenda. Nader is another one. These people won't ever win office, so you don't have to take them too seriously, in that respect, but I'd be interested, covid/conspiracy nonsense aside, to hear/see anyone's refutation of the man's general platform. It's pretty simple stuff.
 
neverdie said:


Here's one for Americans. RFK JR. Remove all the vaccine stuff, which for him, my reading tells me, predates coronavirus (he's been anti-vaccine, all, or many, for decades and whatever happened there or thereafter, I don't really care about) - Covid nonsense aside, the man is basically speaking common sense principle (FDR type stuff). He has no chance of ever winning office, but when a marginal figure is marginalized, with no real reason (forget the covid stuff, I know many people who were anti-vaccine pre-covid who changed their minds and others who were pro-vaccine and lost their minds) - anyway, when such things happen, it tends to be, not always, but generally, because they are speaking about things, whatever of their person, which certain people/institutions do not want on the agenda. Nader is another one. These people won't ever win office, so you don't have to take them too seriously, in that respect, but I'd be interested, covid/conspiracy nonsense aside, to hear/see anyone's refutation of the man's general platform. It's pretty simple stuff.
Click to expand...

Fool’s errand. The two cannot be divorced. The fact that someone can hold two divergent thoughts simultaneously & with the same passion for each immediately negates them for any serious consideration for higher office.

At least by voters with a modicum of common sense.
 
calodo2003 said:
Fool’s errand. The two cannot be divorced. The fact that someone can hold two divergent thoughts simultaneously & with the same passion for each immediately negates them for any serious consideration for higher office.

At least by voters with a modicum of common sense.
Click to expand...
No, I mean the 35 minute speech on foreign and domestic policy. Not a fool's errand. The man has a kind of Californian/hippie view of vaccines, and I don't cite him there, nor am I citing him as an authority on policy, but there's more of relevance in that 35 minutes than there is in everything you see cited from DeSantis/Trump clown-show dailies. He's at least attempting a structural reasoning of foreign and domestic policy. I don't see that in endless tweet-news in so many CE threads.


If Stalin said the Holocaust was evil, and he did, would it be negate the fact that Stalin's regime was responsible for millions dead in gulags? Stalin's opinion on the Holocaust would still be true and an unorthodox, or hippie-view, on vaccination is scarcely that.

I've parsed his history, vaccine stuff aside, which is indeed fringe, it is more consistently true, with respect to academic/historical orthodoxy (logically provable) than most people you'll hear of. Anti-Iraq, anti-war, pro-climate action (way ahead of time), advocate for various things. Don't know much more about the man, nor do I need to, but I can disregard all his opinions on a vaccine and accept a structurally correct (valid) reasoning of sociopolitical history. As for the vaccine stuff, reminds of holism during hippy commune era. Sure, you don't have to go for it, I don't, either, but it doesn't mean you have to disregard everything a person says thereafter - that's the fool's errand (to not be able to dissociate one issue from another because the person articulating it is the problem: principle/fact/logic first for me).
 
Last edited:
neverdie said:
No, I mean the 35 minute speech on foreign and domestic policy. Not a fool's errand. The man has a kind of Californian/hippie view of vaccines, and I don't cite him there, nor am I citing him as an authority on policy, but there's more of relevance in that 35 minutes than there is in everything you see cited from DeSantis/Trump clown-show dailies. He's at least attempting a structural reasoning of foreign and domestic policy. I don't see that in endless tweet-news in so many CE threads.


If Stalin said the Holocaust was evil, and he did, would it be negate the fact that Stalin's regime was responsible for millions dead in gulags? Stalin's opinion on the Holocaust would still be true and an unorthodox, or hippie-view, on vaccination is scarcely that.
Click to expand...
I’ll take your word for that video having plausible policy agendas, but it’s a fools errand for entertaining any semblance of validity of him being a credible candidate.

I guess we could go back & forth in a stasis of ‘would be, could be’ debating his policy points, but that holds no credibility in the actuality of our political reality.

Apologies for the multiple ‘ities’ so close together in that last sentence.
 
calodo2003 said:
t’s a fools errand for entertaining any semblance of validity of him being a credible candidate.

I guess we could go back & forth in a stasis of ‘would be, could be’ debating his policy points, but that holds no credibility in the actuality of our political reality.
Click to expand...
I get you now.

Yeah, he's clearly not got a chance. That is obvious beyond all obviousness. It's just interesting to hear the man speak because all I knew of him was what had made its way through conspiracy things posted here which I dodged like the plague. Basically a standard Nader type (minus views on medicine). Common sense, old school, FDR centrist. As for being elected, yeah, not even as mayor of the local council would be my guess. But his analysis on certain topics is genuinely apt (not everywhere).

(this was meant for the hypernormalization thread btw, forgot where I saw the reference).
 
Last edited:
neverdie said:
No, I mean the 35 minute speech on foreign and domestic policy. Not a fool's errand. The man has a kind of Californian/hippie view of vaccines, and I don't cite him there, nor am I citing him as an authority on policy, but there's more of relevance in that 35 minutes than there is in everything you see cited from DeSantis/Trump clown-show dailies. He's at least attempting a structural reasoning of foreign and domestic policy. I don't see that in endless tweet-news in so many CE threads.


If Stalin said the Holocaust was evil, and he did, would it be negate the fact that Stalin's regime was responsible for millions dead in gulags? Stalin's opinion on the Holocaust would still be true and an unorthodox, or hippie-view, on vaccination is scarcely that.

I've parsed his history, vaccine stuff aside, which is indeed fringe, it is more consistently true, with respect to academic/historical orthodoxy (logically provable) than most people you'll hear of. Anti-Iraq, anti-war, pro-climate action (way ahead of time), advocate for various things. Don't know much more about the man, nor do I need to, but I can disregard all his opinions on a vaccine and accept a structurally correct (valid) reasoning of sociopolitical history. As for the vaccine stuff, reminds of holism during hippy commune era. Sure, you don't have to go for it, I don't, either, but it doesn't mean you have to disregard everything a person says thereafter - that's the fool's errand (to not be able to dissociate one issue from another because the person articulating it is the problem: principle/fact/logic first for me).
Click to expand...
Google RFK and Somoa.
 
WI_Red said:
Google RFK and Somoa.
Click to expand...
No dount, odd shit surrounding him. I don't want any vaccine/or related rabbithole, just saying his primary messaging in that video is pretty on point. Sanders/Nader would accommodate those points in their own campaigns (Sanders did/does in fact make many of the same points). As for the man, I'm not that interested. If DeSantis came out advocating some form of FDR new deal policy, I'd say "that's a good idea". This was meant for gen forum btw, wrong response.
 
neverdie said:


Here's one for Americans. RFK JR. Remove all the vaccine stuff, which for him, my reading tells me, predates coronavirus (he's been anti-vaccine, all, or many, for decades and whatever happened there or thereafter, I don't really care about) - Covid nonsense aside, the man is basically speaking common sense principle (FDR type stuff). He has no chance of ever winning office, but when a marginal figure is marginalized, with no real reason (forget the covid stuff, I know many people who were anti-vaccine pre-covid who changed their minds and others who were pro-vaccine and lost their minds) - anyway, when such things happen, it tends to be, not always, but generally, because they are speaking about things, whatever of their person, which certain people/institutions do not want on the agenda. Nader is another one. These people won't ever win office, so you don't have to take them too seriously, in that respect, but I'd be interested, covid/conspiracy nonsense aside, to hear/see anyone's refutation of the man's general platform. It's pretty simple stuff.
Click to expand...


Can summarize a few key takeaways here? Like what is he really suggesting as far as foreign policy changes go?
 
Mike Smalling said:
Russia are the real victims. Once NATO expanded, they really had no choice but to invade and destroy a sovereign nation. It was a security concern for them.
Click to expand...

That's what I was afraid of. Thanks for saving me 35 minutes of time wasted
 
maniak said:
Sad state of affairs of democracy when elections are being decided by judges.
Click to expand...
This is good though. There needs to be judicial overwatch so that neither side can gerrymander to a severe degree. Neither political party should get away with that shit.

Too bad we have to endure a term with a Repub HoR.
 
neverdie said:
He has no chance of ever winning office, but when a marginal figure is marginalized, with no real reason (forget the covid stuff, I know many people who were anti-vaccine pre-covid who changed their minds and others who were pro-vaccine and lost their minds) - anyway, when such things happen, it tends to be, not always, but generally, because they are speaking about things, whatever of their person, which certain people/institutions do not want on the agenda.
Click to expand...

That's a very long and convoluted way of saying he's saying dumb shit and is being called out on it.
 
nimic said:
That's a very long and convoluted way of saying he's saying dumb shit and is being called out on it.
Click to expand...
Well, to simplify, he has a better command of foreign policy, whether he's batshit insane or not, like a genuine batshit insane person, ala John Bolton, than everyone else running (only the GOP field is to be mentioned and Biden before he hit 70+ would be a distinction tbf).
 
neverdie said:


Here's one for Americans. RFK JR. Remove all the vaccine stuff, which for him, my reading tells me, predates coronavirus (he's been anti-vaccine, all, or many, for decades and whatever happened there or thereafter, I don't really care about) - Covid nonsense aside, the man is basically speaking common sense principle (FDR type stuff). He has no chance of ever winning office, but when a marginal figure is marginalized, with no real reason (forget the covid stuff, I know many people who were anti-vaccine pre-covid who changed their minds and others who were pro-vaccine and lost their minds) - anyway, when such things happen, it tends to be, not always, but generally, because they are speaking about things, whatever of their person, which certain people/institutions do not want on the agenda. Nader is another one. These people won't ever win office, so you don't have to take them too seriously, in that respect, but I'd be interested, covid/conspiracy nonsense aside, to hear/see anyone's refutation of the man's general platform. It's pretty simple stuff.
Click to expand...

Ben Carson. Renowned pediatric brain surgeon yet a political moron and an absolute prick.
 
calodo2003 said:
Fool’s errand. The two cannot be divorced. The fact that someone can hold two divergent thoughts simultaneously & with the same passion for each immediately negates them for any serious consideration for higher office.

At least by voters with a modicum of common sense.
Click to expand...
In some areas those are in very short supply!
 
neverdie said:
Well, to simplify, he has a better command of foreign policy, whether he's batshit insane or not, like a genuine batshit insane person, ala John Bolton, than everyone else running (only the GOP field is to be mentioned and Biden before he hit 70+ would be a distinction tbf).
Click to expand...

What nuggets of foreign policy did you see in that speech you posted, as it pertains to the Ukraine situation?

Because what I saw was:
a) The same tired apologies for Russia about ‘NATO expansion’ and ‘security concerns’ that many other idiots throw around.
b) Him talking about this conflict like the US started it and is actually present there with some kind of imperialist motive.
c) Some absolutely childlike naivety about deescalation. Like if the US would just stop donating weapons, Putin would also deescalate. And if he doesn’t then ‘Oh well, at least we tried’.

He doesn’t have any solution to Ukraine worth listening to. He just spouts inane stuff like ‘Why can’t Biden talk to Putin?’. Just seems like he is stuck in a Cold War mentality, because that’s when he grew up. And he can’t stop referencing his uncle to save his life.
 
Mike Smalling said:
What nuggets of foreign policy did you see in that speech you posted, as it pertains to the Ukraine situation?

Because what I saw was:
a) The same tired apologies for Russia about ‘NATO expansion’ and ‘security concerns’ that many other idiots throw around.
b) Him talking about this conflict like the US started it and is actually present there with some kind of imperialist motive.
c) Some absolutely childlike naivety about deescalation. Like if the US would just stop donating weapons, Putin would also deescalate. And if he doesn’t then ‘Oh well, at least we tried’.

He doesn’t have any solution to Ukraine worth listening to. He just spouts inane stuff like ‘Why can’t Biden talk to Putin?’. Just seems like he is stuck in a Cold War mentality, because that’s when he grew up. And he can’t stop referencing his uncle to save his life.
Click to expand...
Wasn't interested in his Russian/Ukrainian opinions but general overview. As for "Why can't Biden talk to Putin"? - there's nothing remotely insane about that. If you understand history, Nixon and Mao. You can go on and on. The American/Vietnamense delegation in France. A far more bitter war than the one currently being fought in which America is not, despite NATO, directly involved.

Ignore the two divisive issues: coronavirus and the Ukraine/Russian war. That's what I do when I listen to people like that speak. Add Brexit in if it be British. Just bogged down in mind-numbing trench-warfare of tedium, no puns intended.
 
Last edited:
neverdie said:
Wasn't interested in his Russian/Ukrainian opinions but general overview. As for "Why can't Biden talk to Putin"? - there's nothing remotely insane about that. If you understand history, Nixon and Mao. You can go on and on. The American/Vietnamense delegation in France. A far more bitter war than the one currently being fought in which America is not, despite NATO, directly involved.

Ignore the two divisive issues: coronavirus and the Ukraine/Russian war. That's what I do when I listen to people like that speak. Add Brexit in if it be British. Just bogged down in mind-numbing trench-warfare of tedium, no puns intended.
Click to expand...

You introduced the guy with a 30 minute speech on foreign policy, largely focused on the war in Ukraine, and you have indicated that you like what he has to offer on foreign policy. Yet you are not interested in his opinion on the biggest foreign policy issue of our day? That's quite strange.

I didn't call it 'insane', I called in 'inane'. Those two words are not only spelled differently, they also have different meanings. Listing past diplomatic achievements does absolutely nothing for this current situation. RFK Jr. is a guy who has never held public office and has no experience with foreign policy to speak of. If he wasn't called Kennedy, he wouldn't be given the time of day.

So what exactly is it you like about the guy? What policies make up his 'general platform' that you seem to like? You are willing to give him a pass for his cluelessness on the biggest public health issue in recent times, and the biggest current foreign policy problem. What is left that makes him a viable candidate to hold the most important office in the world?
 
WI_Red said:
Fixed the link, but it may be getting Musked. It was Rep Crane referring to black people as “colored people” on the house floor along with some other racist shit.
Click to expand...
Yep, heard that. Shocking stuff.

Actually, not that shocking once I think about it.
 
Mike Smalling said:
So what exactly is it you like about the guy? What policies make up his 'general platform' that you seem to like?
Click to expand...
Did you listen to the speech? Ignoring the Russian/Ukraine scenario? All of it is what I liked. It finds its way from and into the campaigns of Sanders, Nader, etc., Outsiders, whom, barring Sanders, also never had a chance of ever being president but whose policies and agenda deserve an airing. The man takes you on a relatively nuanced trip through structural American foreign and domestic history over the past few decades. That's what I like about it. He will never be president, or hold office, and I'm not pretending he will, but the issues he highlights may be inane to you but are of crucial importance if you understand American politics regarding infrastructure, base, superstructure, and the appeal of cartoon-cutouts such as DeSantis, etc (people who, by choice or lack of capacity, do not have the ability to make the same kind of speeches).

Ukraine/Russia won't be resolved by RFK jr and nor will it be resolved by 90% of the people cited by certain posters in the actual war thread or this thread (there are exceptionally well-informed posters, even if I disagree with them, aside). His opinion there isn't what interested me. His structural analysis of US as regime-change apparatus post 9/11 (not including Ukraine) is what interested me. That and the absolute hollowing out of the vital infrastructural investment within the US economy, basic Sanders' campaign (and Trump campaign) selling points.

Also posted it in the wrong thread: was meant for general, wasn't meaning to derail this thread with back and forths about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.